Optimal control methods for conservation biology: a case of non-harvesting utility

O. O. Vasilieva

The Bulletin of Irkutsk State University. Series Mathematics, Tome 8 (2014), pp. 44-61

Résumé

The main purpose of this paper is to retrace the evolution of mathematical models focused on relation and interaction between economic growth, sustainable development and natural environment conservation. The starting point is a simple model of common-property harvesting, where renewable resource grows according to the course of nature. Further, this model is amended with defensive expenditures that favor the species growth. Apart from solely harvesting models, a transition model comprising both harvesting and non-harvesting values of wild biological species is presented. Preponderantly, all these models are designed to seek for long-term optimal and/or sustainable strategies for harvesting, where species preservation guarantees the profit stability for future generations and thus contributes to the economic development. On the other hand, there is a group of purely non-harvesting models where anthropic activities and economic growth may have positive or negative impact on the natural evolution of wild species. Several scholars have proved that optimal strategies that are relatively good for harvesting purposes are not merely transferrable to the context of conservation of wildlife biological species with no harvesting value. However, existence of long-term conservation policies for all biological species (with or without harvesting value) cannot be guaranteed without having relatively large species populations at initial time. Therefore, all such strategies are incapable to enhance scarce population of endangered species and save them from eventual (local) extinction. As an alternative, policy makers are compelled to design and implement short-term defensive actions aimed at enhancement of wildlife species populations. The latter is referred to as an emergent area of research in conservation biology.

Détail

Keywords: bioeconomic models, endangered species, non-harvesting utility, optimal control.
Mots-clés : conservation

Bibliographie

[1] V. Aggarwal, Environmental Studies, Pinnacle Technology, India, 2010

[2] R. R. Alexander, “Modelling species extinction: the case for non-consumptive values”, Ecological Economics, 35:2 (2000), 259–269 | DOI

[3] R. R. Alexander, D. W. Shields, “Using land as a control variable in density-dependent bioeconomic models”, Ecological Modelling, 170:2–3 (2003), 193–201 | DOI

[4] L. G. Anderson, J. C. Seijo, Bioeconomics of Fisheries Management, Wiley, 2011 | Zbl

[5] A. Antoci, S. Borghesi, P. Russu, “Biodiversity and economic growth: Trade-offs between stabilization of the ecological system and preservation of natural dynamics”, Ecological Modelling, 189:3–4 (2005), 333–346 | DOI

[6] A. Antoci, S. Borghesi, P. Russu, “Interaction between economic and ecological dynamics in an optimal economic growth model”, Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods Applications, 63:5–7 (2005), e389–e398 | DOI | Zbl

[7] K. J. Boyle, R. C. Bishop, “Valuing wildlife in benefit-cost analyses: A case study involving endangered species”, Water Resources Research, 23:5 (1987), 943–950 | DOI

[8] D. E. Campo-Duarte, O. Vasilieva, “Bioeconomic model with Gompertz population growth and species conservation”, Int. J. Pure Appl. Math., 72:1 (2011), 49–63 | MR

[9] C. W. Clark, “Profit maximization and the extinction of animal species”, Journal of Political Economy, 81:4 (1973), 950–961 | DOI

[10] C. W. Clark, Mathematical bioeconomics: the optimal management of renewable resources, Wiley-Interscience [John Wiley Sons], New York, 1976 | MR | Zbl

[11] P. Comolli, “Sustainability and growth when manufactured capital and natural capital are not substitutable”, Ecological Economics, 60:1 (2006), 157–167 | DOI | MR

[12] E. Cruz-Rivera, O. Vasilieva, “Optimal policies aimed at stabilization of populations with logistic growth under human intervention”, Theoretical Population Biology, 83 (2013), 123–135 | DOI | Zbl

[13] E. Cruz-Rivera, O. Vasilieva, M. Svinin, “Optimal short-term policies for protection of single biological species from local extinction”, Ecological Modelling, 263 (2013), 273–280 | DOI

[14] E. Dumont, “Estimated impact of global population growth on future wilderness extent”, Earth System Dynamics Discussions, 3:1 (2012), 433–452 | DOI

[15] P. Ehrlich, “The loss of diversity: causes and consequences”, Biodiversity, ed. E. O. Wilson, National Academy Press, Washington, 1988, 21–27

[16] F. V. Eppink, J. C. J. M. Van Den Bergh, “Ecological theories and indicators in economic models of biodiversity loss and conservation: A critical review”, Ecological Economics, 61:2–3 (2007), 284–293 | DOI

[17] H. S. Gordon, “The economic theory of a common-property resource: The fishery”, Journal of Political Economy, 62 (1954), 124 | DOI

[18] R. Hill, E. Halamish, I. J. Gordon, M. Clark, “The maturation of biodiversity as a global social–ecological issue and implications for future biodiversity science and policy”, Futures, 46 (2013), 41–49 | DOI

[19] S. Madan, P. Madan (eds.), Global encyclopaedia of environmental science, technology and management, 2 Vols. Set, Philosophy of History, 1, Global Vision Publishing House, India, 2009

[20] A. G. Nobile, L. M. Ricciardi, L. Sacerdote, “On Gompertz growth model and related difference equations”, Biological Cybernetics, 42:3 (1982), 221–229 | Zbl

[21] F. E. Smith, “Population dynamics in Daphnia magna and a new model for population growth”, Ecology, 44:4 (1963), 651–663 | DOI

[22] T. M. Swanson, “The economics of extinction revisited and revised: A generalised framework for the analysis of the problems of endangered species and biodiversity losses”, Oxford Economic Papers, 46 (1994), 800–821

[23] O. Tahvonen, J. Kuuluvainen, “Optimal growth with renewable resources and pollution”, European Economic Review, 35:2–3 (1991), 650–661 | DOI

[24] O. Tahvonen, J. Kuuluvainen, “Economic growth, pollution, and renewable resources”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 24:2 (1993), 101–118 | DOI | Zbl